Yikes, What Happened to Google Images?

[jomaxx]

Just came across a totally new interface. Now you have to mouse over each image in order for the image information, URL and the "more results from..." link to be displayed. That's a giant step backwards in usability.

[engine]

It seems we have mixed reviews on the new image search. Personally, I don't like having to mouse over the images. Although, it does show the value in ALT=

[mrjohncory]

Well, at least there's that link to Yahoo image search at the top.

Click that and you can see the dimensions and urls just like you used to in Google. ;)

[Optin]

It looks great - the next step would be to expand and 3d the images on mouse over.

[night707]

1. I can avoid garbage sites
2. I can see where images from MY sites are placing in the image serps
3. I can check quickly to see if someone is ripping off my images

Two thumbs down!

Two thumbs up for that comment! As if there is nothing better to do for that big G department ...

[Frederic1]

[quote="jimbeetle"]Those danged engineers always forget that the eye can scan and the brain can capture a heck of a lot more information than they give credit.[/quote]

I totally agree.

As I said on my other post, the url of an image is a very important information in my opinion. People who often use Google Images know that some sites put false "alt=" information to deceive search results. For example you type "Matt Cutts" on Google Images and and you see a picture of D'Artagnan because the webmaster has filled false image description =)

If the url was visible, you could see instantly the url and give more trust to an image coming from mattcutts.com that from spam-site.com without having to rollover the image :(

The least Google could do is enable the old-style results through the "Preferences".

[edited by: Frederic1 at 7:36 pm (utc) on Jan. 25, 2007]

[encyclo]

The lack of serp URL (apart from during mouseover) certainly makes the page look cleaner, but it means that images are presented Google's content with no attribution to the originating site. Hmm...

[jimbeetle]

Does anybody else think it's a bit wierd that a company whose mission is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful", needs to propose a workaround to make that information universally accessible and useful?

Come on, Google, you can do better.

[norton j radstock]

it's awful.

[StickyNote]

Although 'thumbs down' in this forum, is it possible that a majority of users just want to click on the pretty pictures without having to deal with words on the page?

There must be some user testing before such a large change is implemented?

[Leosghost]

The lack of serp URL (apart from during mouseover) certainly makes the page look cleaner, but it means that images are presented Google's content with no attribution to the originating site. Hmm...

I had to wait for someone else to say ...it other wise I'd be accused of being scarecrow ( Daniel) 's alter ego ..but that is precisely what it the change is all about ..

[Lexur]

I supose the engineer who set up this interface and made us to point each image with the cursor to have necessary data is dumb enough to read papers and books pointing with his own finger.

[alexdino1]

Out of all the projects that they have going on, who is the braniac that decided that this one should be prioritized over the other ones.

Let's see...we have to take down Google Answers because we don't have enough resources to support it because we are working hard to make Google Images worse.

[mattglet]

Another vote "no" from me. Usability just got thrown out the window on this one.

[zeus]

I just wait for a update and that they check there "Moderate SafeSearch is on" filter be cause that realy filters everything not just boobs which the americans dont want to see :)

[Clark]

Doesn't bother me as much as most people here, results look cleaner. But why hide stuff in the page just to show whitespace?

What bothers me more is that if they're going to spend effort on image search, there's plenty they can improve. They are google. Laser focus on search. So why can't I search for images of X width, or N height? Or both. How about allinalt: etc.

[Digimon]

it is very funnt cos I have just used the google image search and I have realised how bad it is now :( The next thing I have seen is this thread where EVERYONE agree on it.
This time you have missed the target, massively!
Google, go back to the previous version, we all like it much better!

[mzanzig]

Uh - what a big, no wait - make that: giant step backwards!

This change makes the product almost unusable, which is a pity, because the product was quite okay before that change. I would have loved to see other (real) improvements to image search, e.g. for embedded EXIF or IPTC data.

Where is the point in having to point to each image to see the most basic information?

[Tropical Island]

I don't like it and have posted so on MC's blog.

It's as annoying as pop-ups.

Every time I tried to scroll through a page I got all these things popping up at me - it's just terrible.

Some engineer thought it would be pretty.

[System]

continued over here: [webmasterworld.com...]